malazanfandomcom-20200222-history
Talk:The Crippled God/Dramatis Personae
It's time to tackle the Ext DP of The Crippled God... I would like to begin editing the CG Ext DP. I've done nothing to the existing one so far, although it's clear that it has been edited in the past (but with no citations given). I just now re-checked when it was last edited and it still gives the date 1/13/16. I assume, therefore, that it's up for grabs. I have already been working on 'collecting' names (with citations) from tCG (I've found ~300 so far up to Chapter 11), so I'll be able to hit the ground running (so to speak). As it turns out, probably because the book was published in both the UK and the US simultaneously, there seems to exist only one form of the hardcover Dramatis Personae (pages xiii-xiv) and of the Appendix/Dramatis Personae (pages 910-913). (I'll give the edition that I'm using Crippled God", US TOR Hardcover in the CG Ext DP, in any case.) So, one decision which needs to be made is the 'entry bolding/italicizing' one: :1) We can either 'bold' just the names in the DP in the front of the text--while using italics for the Appendix/DP names (as well as the other names that appear in the book but are not mentioned in neither of the aforementioned DP's). :2) Alternatively, we can 'bold' the names which appear in 'either' DP. (Using italics as usual for names not mentioned in either place.) You may want to glance over the Appendix/DP, if you haven't looked at it recently. Note that a significant number of the entries there have been 'updated' (e.g., Faradan Sort is now listed as being a Fist, rather than as a Captain, etc., etc.). While seeing arguments for handling it either way, it doesn't really matter to me which way it's done (I'll correct the DP 'typos', of course). What do the rest of you think? When I start entering data, I will change any existing entries into entries written in my usual Ext DP 'style'. I hope this is OK with everyone? Are there any other concerns/suggestion, etc., that you have before I get started?? Pcwrcw (talk) 21:56, November 15, 2016 (UTC) CG Ext DP Bold and/or Italics?? :How about bold as usual for the openers and the additional ones in normal italics as per usual but use bold italics for those appearing in the appendix (leaving any that are in the opening DP in plain bold) and add an explanatory note to the introductory message? Once completed, as we already have the full DD EDP, people can easily check if a character appears in both. Or is this making it too complicated? :Egwene of the Malazan Empire (talk) 23:10, November 15, 2016 (UTC) From Pcwrcw (talk)--I have to admit, Egwene, that I was at first taken by your idea above, so I made the 'table' below to see how the various choices would appear on the computer screen: 'Plain' Examples: :Example...(Italics only) :Example...(Bold only) :Example...(Bold & Italics) 'Real' Entries: :Thorl...(Italics only) :Cotillion...(Italics only) :Brolos Haran...(Bold only) :Sweetcreek...(Bold only) :Icarium...(Bold & Italics) Now, I'm not so sure if it's workable. The actual coding is easy enough to do, but sorting out which entry should have a given 'appearance' (even with this tiny sample), was more confusing than I thought it would be. I'm concerned that I would make too many errors using this system, and I'm not sure but that it would confuse users of the Ext DP, as well. I'm beginning to lean towards going the 'simple' route. By which I mean that a) the names in the Dramatis Personae (pp. xiii-xiv) would all be bolded, while b) the names in the Appendix (pp. 910-913) would be in italics. The names that happen to show up in both places would thus be in bold. As you say, since the full DD Ext DP is available, anyone who wants/needs to track changes between the DPs of DoD and tCG would be able to do so. When the full CG Ext DP is finished, of course : ) I'm open to suggestions, however...Pcwrcw (talk) 22:01, November 16, 2016 (UTC) The 'simple' way of handling bold/italics--redux Okay, let's assume, for argument's sake, that I use the 'simple' approach as to which CG Ext DP entries are bolded and which are italicized (see above). To make things clear to users of the Ext DP then, I think that two sections of the introductory material would need to be modified (with footnotes added). Thus (as a first 'draft'): :"for the Dramatis Personae as published in the book, :please see mainpage" could become: :For the original Dramatis Personae as published in :the book, please see "The Crippled God" mainpage. :Names from this list will appear in the CG Ext DP :in BOLD.1 1 could be something like... 1The Dramatis Personae from the US TOR Hardcover of the "The Crippled God" was used as the original DP - other editions may vary. also: "Characters in addition to the original Dramatis Personae from the book are given in italics." could become: Characters in addition to the original ''Dramatis Personae (including those found in the ''Appendix:Dramatis Personae of "The Crippled God") will appear in the CG Ext DP in ITALICS.2 2 could be something like... [2Note that some entries in the text of the Appendix:Dramatis Personae of "The Crippled God" are given in an 'updated' form (e.g., "Captain Kindly" is printed as "Fist Kindly", etc.). Reactions? Pcwrcw (talk) 21:08, November 18, 2016 (UTC) re: Symbol to use for entries given in tCG Appendix:Dramatis Personae :Yeah, it probably would get overly complicated to add additional bold italics. How about adding some kind of symbol to those names that appear in the appendix, once you have completed the entire EDP? That probably wouldn't take too much time. :Egwene of the Malazan Empire (talk) 20:14, November 19, 2016 (UTC) What a great idea! What sort of symbol were you thinking of? How about "§"? That would be distinctive and easy to do (at least in the Monobook editing screen). Or... Also, where would be the best place to put the symbol (whichever one is used) in the actual entries? * § Bottle, Malazan Army squad member (1) * Bottle §, Malazan Army squad member (2) * Bottle, § Malazan Army squad member (3) * Bottle, §, Malazan Army squad member (4) * Bottle, Malazan Army squad member# § (5) OR...?? I don't think (5) would be a good choice because of the 'footnote #' that would appear there. Of the five choices above, I tend to like (1) - but would that screw up website protocol (or some such thing)? I would include the symbol 'information' in the modified introductory material information, of course. Pcwrcw (talk) 21:53, November 19, 2016 (UTC) ::In front of the name is a good place as it also creates an indent and makes those names easy to spot. A more solid, text contrasting symbol would probably be better though. If you look at the GotM EDP you can see that the diamond symbol we use to mark the spoiler friendly pages in an EDP is very easy to spot. How about inserting the large dot and a space in front of the name? Using an example from GotM EDP, the list would look as follows: ::* • A'Karonys, High Mage to the Empress1 ♦ ::* Agent in Genabaris, unnamed empire contact2 ::If you edit a text and click the preview, it will show you how it effects a page and you can change things back if you don't like what you see. I have also found it useful that it is possible to recover a webpage from the preview point so if you accidentally pressed the wrong button and an hours work has disappeared, you can go back and refresh and recover at least from that stage! ::Egwene of the Malazan Empire (talk) 14:14, November 20, 2016 (UTC) Well, we agree that putting the symbol in the front of the entry name would be best. As for using "•", I'm afraid that it's too small. Even peering closely at the computer screen, I can't tell what shape the 'blob' is supposed to be. This may have more to do with my eyes/bifocals than anything else, but I'm sure I'm not the only person (particularly those of us of a 'certain age') who would have that problem. As for using "♠", "♣", or "♥" - I did think about them, but I was concerned that CG Ext DP users might get them confused with "♦". However, I'm open to using one of them...the "♥" or "♣" looks the most different from the "♦" (to my eye). One of the main reasons that I like "§" is because it's large and distinct on the screen. Also, because it vaguely looks like an "S" (although it's not), it conveys overtones of 'supplemental', which would be appropriate for an "Appendix" marker. OK, it looks like it's between "♥"/"♣" and "§"...perhaps we could get another opinion? I'll go along with the majority : ) Pcwrcw (talk) 20:17, November 20, 2016 (UTC) CG Ext DP Symbol Redux :Well, I've started the CG Ext DP. I've incorporated the changes/additions discussed above. After seeing what the various 'symbols' looked like on the actual CG Ext DP screen, I decided to use one of your suggestions (♥) to indicate that that particular entry name is listed in tCG's Appendix:Dramatis Personae section. I'll do the actual incorporation of the symbols at some point--either piecemeal, or at the very end, whichever seems to work best. So now it just a matter of 'churning out' the data, 'checking it twice', doing the 'footnotes', etc., etc., etc. It feels good to begin the actual Ext DP. Thanks for your input : ) Pcwrcw (talk) 00:05, November 23, 2016 (UTC) Not so keen on the heart as it is too symbolic for romance though I like the solidness of it. How about a ■ larger ● or a ► ? Jade Raven can probably add those to the symbols available, otherwise just use copy and paste. Egwene of the Malazan Empire (talk) 11:33, November 23, 2016 (UTC) :Well, the square is out because when a DP or EDP is printed out (at least in Monobook), all entries appear with a beginning (slightly smaller) solid square at the far left margin (where the * is in the code). :I like the side-ways triangle best. OK, I just experimented with doing a copy/paste on your symbol, and got the (►), so I will use that. Thanks, Pcwrcw (talk) 19:55, November 23, 2016 (UTC) I forgot about that grey square. The arrow would have been my first choice of the three in any case, so I am glad you are going for that one.Egwene of the Malazan Empire (talk) 20:17, November 23, 2016 (UTC) re: the (non-character) 'Dathenar Gowl' in the CG DP I have reached Chapter 19 in tCG (the conclusion of the battle at the First Shore). After reading the chapter multiple times and referring to the tCG's Appendix:Dramatis Personae, I am convinced that the character given in the main Dramatis Personae ('The Tiste Andii' subsection) as Dathenar Gowl is another of the many misprints found in the book's DP and Appendix:DP. I'm as sure as I can be that Dathenar Gowl is a conflation of the character names Dathenar Fandoris and Prazek Goul (with a misspelling of 'Goul' thrown in for good measure). The actual text bears this out: :1) it is quite clear that 'Dathenar' and 'Prazek' are two completely separate Tiste Andii characters, :2) the names 'Dathenar Fandoris' and 'Prazek Goul' are actually used in the text, itself, (with those spellings), and :3) the Appendix:DP gives the two names 'Dathenar Fandoris' and 'Prazek Gowl' sic, who are not otherwise accounted for. I would like to correct the DP of the mainpage, but the confusion seems to have run deep and long--there is actually an article for a character named "Dathenar Gowl", for example. How should this be handled? My CG Ext DP will reflect the above, but that leaves what to do about the tCG's mainpage DP, and associated articles. Has this come up before? At a loss, Pcwrcw (talk) 20:26, November 26, 2016 (UTC) :Based on what we know now, I think you're likely correct. Even more maddening is that there is a Prazek and Dathenar in the Kharkanas trilogy (but with no surnames and Dathenar is male to boot). :My take on this: # Leave Dathenar Gowl on the main DP page, but include a Trivia note at the bottom of the page explaining the situation. # Create a Dathenar Fandoris page and copy the Dathenar Gowl data over to it. Add a Trivia section to the bottom regarding the issue. # Convert the current Dathenar Gowl page into a redirect to Dathenar Fandoris. # Update the Dathenar Gowl link on the Main DP to point to Dathenar Fandoris. # Create a Prazek Gowl redirect page that points to Prazek Goul. :I'd like to hear if Egwene has any opinion on this too. :--ArchieVist (talk) 20:48, November 27, 2016 (UTC) ::From Pcwrcw: I am (unhappily) going to have to throw myself on the mercy of you, ArchieVist, or Egwene. I currently don't know yet how to do any of the five procedures you mention above : ( ::I am hoping to start picking up the necessary know-how once I start to produce articles from scratch--which is first on my things to do after I finish the CG Ext DP. ::In the meanwhile, I agree — let's see what Egwene has to say about the situation. Pcwrcw (talk) 22:30, November 27, 2016 (UTC) :::I largely agree with ArchieVist's recommendations, except steps (2) and (3) can be replaced instead with just using the "rename" button at the top of the page (in monobook). I would also add "Trivia" sections to all three pages (see GM/23 for an example of a trivia section). -- 05:38, November 28, 2016 (UTC) Agree with all of the above. Good shout, Pcwrcw. I don't know if this kind of thing was done deliberately by SE but I would like to think so. It again reflects how facts can get easily distorted in the re-telling and that all information is only as good as its source. As long as you reflect that in your entry, you are ok, Pcwrcw. We are not here to clear contradictions or decide which theories might be correct - we need to document all the angles given in the books as we find them, allowing the users of the Wiki to make up their own mind. So again - great job on spotting this! I'll try and do the changes later or tomorrow. Egwene of the Malazan Empire (talk) 10:12, November 28, 2016 (UTC) :Ok, serves me right to make a shout based on vague memories rather than research. Looks to me the situation is a bit more complicated than I first thought. One thing I absolutely want to avoid is us putting down our guess as to what the authors might have intended. I am going to do a bit of superficial cleaning up but will look at the issue surrounding those names closer when I have a bit more time.Egwene of the Malazan Empire (talk) 11:07, November 28, 2016 (UTC) ::Well, I didn't really have time but... take a look at the changes I made to check if they reflect your impressions as well.Egwene of the Malazan Empire (talk) 12:41, November 28, 2016 (UTC) From Pcwrcw (talk): Egwene, I expressed my sincere thanks of your generously 'taking care' of this issue over on your own Talk site. I agree that this is a complicated issue (which was what freaked me out), but (having 'marinaded' myself in Chapter 19 of tCG) I'm pretty sure I know how the confusion arose. :I'll try and explain my thinking in the various pages that you have generated, so (other than double-checking my train of thought), you don't have to add this to your list of things to do. We have to keep in mind (with reference to the main DP and the Appendix:DP of tCG) that there are at least ten obvious misprints in the two DPs (at least in early paper editions). Also, I think internal evidence supports the conclusion that the A:DP was the source of the main DP. I'm not going to be dogmatic about things (SE hasn't sent me any stone tablets, after all), but I think (very briefly) that it all started with the misspelling in the A:DP of the last name of "Prazek Goul" (which appears twice, spelled just that way "Goul", in the actual text of Chapter 19) and then snowballed from there. That's the gist of the argument, anyway. I will go over it more completely in the corresponding pages that you produced. Very appreciatively, Pcwrcw (talk) 02:35, November 29, 2016 (UTC) Errors in tCG's main DP and A:DP and "Dathenar Gowl" - in general ::Opinions: Erikson is a discovery writer, he doesn't have much in the way plans written down and seems to work almost entirely from memory. That's why he can write so fast, but it also means he makes several small errors like this (and some big ones like Harllo). It's pretty surprising that he doesn't make more. -- 07:21, November 30, 2016 (UTC) From Pcwrcw (talk) 21:50, November 30, 2016 (UTC): Jade Raven, I agree completely with what you say above. Given the vast number of characters (from very major to very minor) in SE's (undoubtedly complex) Malazan books, I've always been amazed at the minimal number of errors in the text and in the 'front' and 'back' material of the books. That goes for the text of "The Crippled God", as well. However, the case is different for the tCG DP and tCG A:DP. It is my opinion that the multiple misprints in tCG's main Dramatis Personae and tCG's Appendix:Dramatis Personae are not to be laid at SE's door, but are actually artifacts of the unusual and complex publishing process of DoD and tCG. As we all know (since SE has specifically told us so), DoD and tCG are actually two halves of one book (but which ended up being published separately). CG was also the first of the SE Malazan books to be simultaneously published in both the UK and US. Probably as a result of these two factors (plus other 'unknowable' ones), I think that the final forms of the CG DP and CG A:DP (at least as they appear in the earliest 'paper' HB/HC editions) were perhaps dealt with by someone else (not SE) - probably under some sort of time constraint - while SE was madly trying to finish the CG text as quickly as possible. In regard to errors in the text of tCG, I've found very few. So, when I speak of the misprints in tCG, I want it to be understood that I am talking solely about the multiple ones that occur in the main CG DP and A:DP only, and that it is those misprints which I think led to the creation of "Dathenar Gowl". To explain how "Dathenar Gowl" came to exist, it will be necessary for me to look closely at the main CG DP and the A:DP, because "Dathenar Gowl" appears solely in the CG DP and appears nowhere in the actual text of tCG. I can speak about this with some authority as, in the last several weeks, I have closely read tCG twice now while 'looking' specifically for names for the CG 'Extended' Dramatis Personae. It goes without saying that any conclusions that I draw, as I go along, are my opinions only, and that other people may have different, (perfectly valid) 'takes' on the subject. To be able to discuss the 'origin of "Dathenar Gowl" intelligently (and so that everyone is on the same page to speak), I will need to start by including an ERRATA section for the main CG DP and A:DP below. :Very good explanation Pcwrcw, now that I think of it many of the inconsistencies I find are between the text and the DP (GM/23 comes to mind). By the way the Trivia section was almost going to be named "Errata" at one point. -- 02:22, December 1, 2016 (UTC) Errors in "The Crippled God" Dramatis Personae and Appendix:Dramatis Personae - (an ERRATA section) Errors in "The Crippled God" Appendix:Dramatis Personae (A:DP) ---- ::* (1) 'Wimble Thrup' (an A:DP entry) is a misprint for Himble Thrup ::* (2) 'Nemanda' (two separate A:DP entries) are misprints for Nenanda ::* (3) 'Silk Warchief-Spax' (an A:DP entry) is a misprint for Gilk Warchief-Spax ::* (4) 'Prazek Gowl' (an A:DP entry) is a misprint for Prazek Goul ::* (5) 'Aimanan Hood' (an A:DP entry) is a misprint for the entry Aimanan and the separate entry Hood ::* (6) 'THE SHAKE' (an A:DP Sub-heading) needs to be inserted between the entries Saddic (a Snake member) and Yan Tovis (a Shake member) in the A:DP ::* (7) 'Shadowthrone (Ammeanas)' (an A:DP entry) is a misprint for Shadowthrone (Ammanas) ::* (8) "THE HOST" entries Skintick, Desra and Nemanda sic (A:DP entries) should be deleted. The entries "Skintick", "Desra" and "Nenanda" are correctly found in "THE TISTE ANDII" section of the (A:DP) only. Errors in "The Crippled God" main Dramatis Personae (DP) ---- ::* (9) 'THE SNAKE' (a DP Sub-heading) is a misprint for 'THE SHAKE' ::* (10) 'Dathenar Gowl', (a DP entry) is a probable misprint for the entry Dathenar Fandoris and the separate entry Prazek Goul, (see Dathenar Gowl for a discussion of this) ::* (11) 'Silannah' (a DP entry) is a misprint for Silanah ::* (12) 'Gallimada' (a DP entry) is a ''misprint for Gillimada ::* (13) 'Nemanda' (a DP entry) is a misprint for Nenanda have to stop now--I will discuss my thinking re: the evolution of "Dathenar Gowl" presently. I will be using the above ERRATA and the text of "The Crippled God" (Chapter 19) in doing so. Pcwrcw (talk) 22:37, November 30, 2016 (UTC) :Good detective work there, Pcwrcw. I am pretty certain that Dathenar Gowl derived from 'Dathenar Prazek Gowl'. I can't remember which edition (it may have been an e-book) but the two names actually appear on one line. From there to cutting out the bit in the middle it isn't far. I am pretty convinced that the mistakes here are mostly due to the input of copy writers, printers etc. rather than SE. I would add the list you have compiled to the bottom of the DP page and include a link to this discussion page.Egwene of the Malazan Empire (talk) 19:40, December 1, 2016 (UTC) From Pcwrcw (talk): OK, I've added the misprint info (listed above) to a new ERRATA section (located after the "Z" entry) at the end of the CG 'Extended' DP. I've also included a link to this discussion page there. The twelve individual 'corrections' also currently appear (alphabetically) in the main body of the CG 'Ext' DP. I'm not sure that the individual misprint entries are actually needed (what with the existence now of the ERRATA section), but it's a looong list and a user could easily miss the errata if they are listed only at the end. I don't particularly want to include an alert (of the existence of an ERRATA section) at the beginning of the 'Ext' DP, but could, of course, do so if it's thought necessary and/or a good idea. This whole kerfuffle (re: "Dathenar Gowl sic", etc.) has certainly slowed down my production of the CG 'Ext' DP. What with the background material already given, I'm inclined to just go ahead and finish the tCG DP, and then come back and deal with the remaining loose ends. The 'loose ends' certainly need to be dealt with, but I don't think that there is any particular urgency in the situation. Pcwrcw (talk) 23:49, December 2, 2016 (UTC) :I think what you've done will cover it, albeit I haven't looked closely at this myself so you probably know better. I toned down some of your emphasis in the article a bit by the way. -- 10:51, December 3, 2016 (UTC) ::You are in charge here, Pcwrcw - it is your call in which sequence you want to edit what still needs doing :) I added a few words to clarify the meaning of what corrections are based on and changed the listing so that Appendix follows DP as it does in the book. I'll also move the content of this page to the discussion page for the DP as it is the more appropriate location. Thanks for being so thorough in your research. Egwene of the Malazan Empire (talk) 20:57, December 3, 2016 (UTC) From Pcwrcw (talk): Jade Raven and Egwene, I think it's possible that the info already presented may well be 'enough'. Until I finish the CG 'Ext' DP, I'll let this particular issue percolate in the back of my mind, and see how I feel about it then. Also, thanks very much to you both for the changes and/or modifications that you have made. What you have both done has certainly improved the appearance, readability, and usability of the material. Pcwrcw (talk) 21:36, December 3, 2016 (UTC) :Glad to be able to help you a little in this massive project, Pcwrcw :) :I take it you checked the DP entries that were already on the page against your copy - looking at the history of the main page, the DP had been added there a long time ago - when I copied it across, I didn't check it against my own copy. :Looking at my own UK (Transworld Publishers) hardback now, the appendix actually lists both, Dathenar Fandoris and Pratzek Goul correctly. In my e-copy appendix however, it lists 'Dathenar Fandoris Prazek Gowl' all on one line. :Egwene of the Malazan Empire (talk) 10:10, December 6, 2016 (UTC) From Pcwrcw (talk): Yes Egwene, I did check the original "Dramatis Personae (as found in books)" (which was the time located with the mainpage material of "The Crippled God"). I have, in fact, a copy of it (dated 11/8/2016) that I printed out when I began first working on the CG 'Ext' DP. It shows the correct spellings for 'THE SHAKE' sub-heading, the 'Silanah' entry, and the 'Nenanda' entry. However, it gives as entries, "Dathenar Gowl sic", and "Gallimada sic". Someone had already begun working on a CG 'Ext' DP (abandoning it early in the project), and I assumed (perhaps incorrectly) that he/she/they (or perhaps somebody else entirely) had 'silently' made the obvious corrections to the DP as originally found in the 'mainpage'. I was well into my version of the CG 'Ext' DP before I realized that there was something wrong with the "Dathenar Gowl sic" and "Gallimada sic" entries; not to mention all the errors existing in the A:DP. The CG edition that I used is the earliest US HC edition printed. I've not seen a copy of the corresponding UK First Edition, which was published simultaneously with the US edition, but the text of the novel should, by definition, be the same. I have no idea what the main DP and A:DP of that UK edition look like, but I'd be surprised to find that the first printings of the UK and US versions differ. On the other hand, it doesn't surprise me in the least that Bantam Press (an imprint of Transworld Publishers) took the opportunity, at some point, of correcting the most obvious errors. (One can just imagine SE's reaction when he became aware of the shape that the (Bantam/TOR) published DP and A:DP of the first UK/US editions were in.) The e-copies were produced by other companies (obviously under license). They probably(?) didn't monkey with the text of the novel, itself, but they clearly suited themselves as far as the main DP and A:DP were concerned--judging by the remarks I've read made by people who are familiar with them. My CG 'Ext' DP is based on the 'first US Hardcover edition'. As it turns out, a much later (corrected) edition might have been a 'better' choice (this being clearly a 'had-I-but-known' situation). Or perhaps not... Pcwrcw (talk) 22:11, December 6, 2016 (UTC) :As long as everything - original DP and appendix entries are as per one, i.e. your copy, then that's fine. I have no idea what the DP from the main page was based on but given mistakes made across the site in the early days, there may well have been mistakes made in the adding. Given the amount of variations, it is probably best to just add a big note to the introduction on the DP page making that point. :Hope you were pleased to see one of your red links disappear! : ) :Egwene of the Malazan Empire (talk) 15:42, December 7, 2016 (UTC) :PS: if you click on the history link in the top toolbar, you can trace and compare all the edits right back to the creation of the page.Egwene of the Malazan Empire (talk) 15:45, December 7, 2016 (UTC) From Pcwrcw (talk): Egwene, I've added a note to the introduction on the tCG DP page in regard to the existence of various versions of the main DP and A:DP among "The Crippled God" editions. Is it what you had in mind? Change it if not. PS: I'm always pleased to see red links 'magically' turn blue ; ) Pcwrcw (talk) 20:24, December 7, 2016 (UTC)